Operation Megh Rahat : A Leap from Despair to Hope

[janon]

Ok. India Army. happy now ?

Happier. This is a classic example of how misleading descriptions can create a false impression. Replace "hindu" with "Indian" in your first couple of posts, and see how the rhetoric begins to crumble.

"Hindu army in muslim land" gives a very different impression from "Indian army in Kashmir". Only the latter is true.

The places where muslims are in Majority are muslim land. So is for christian community. And kashmir is not a part of India.

So which are the "hindu lands"? Almost all of India? What should be done with muslims in Kerala, WB, UP etc? Kick them out? For occupying "hindu lands"?

 

[Biplab Bijay]

Happier. This is a classic example of how misleading descriptions can create a false impression. Replace "hindu" with "Indian" in your first couple of posts, and see how the rhetoric begins to crumble.

"Hindu army in muslim land" gives a very different impression from "Indian army in Kashmir". Only the latter is true.

But Hindus have oppressed muslims before partition.

Happier. This is a classic example of how misleading descriptions can create a false impression. Replace "hindu" with "Indian" in your first couple of posts, and see how the rhetoric begins to crumble.

"Hindu army in muslim land" gives a very different impression from "Indian army in Kashmir". Only the latter is true.


So which are the "hindu lands"? Almost all of India? What should be done with muslims in Kerala, WB, UP etc? Kick them out? For occupying "hindu lands"?

Nope if they want to govern themselves separately, they should be allowed.

 

[janon]

But Hindus have oppressed muslims before partition.

Sure. And muslims have oppressed hindus for centuries. But none of that is relevant to the modern Republic of India. That is history.

Nope if they want to govern themselves separately, they should be allowed.

Who is the "they"? Hindus? In all hindu majority places, shouldn hindus be allowed to govern themselves separately? Why is this separate governance only reserved for muslims?

You are still shirking from telling me a few "hindu lands" in India, although you had no problem calling one part "muslim land". Please name a few "hindu lands", and tell me if hindus in those places should be given separate governance.

 

[Biplab Bijay]

Sure. And muslims have oppressed hindus for centuries. But none of that is relevant to the modern Republic of India. That is history.

Nope. Hindus are cunning people. They work fine when they remain as slaves. Hindus have oppressed muslim before partition.

Another secular logic is that muslims have ruled this land. That does not mean we seculars should stay in past.

Sure. And muslims have oppressed hindus for centuries. But none of that is relevant to the modern Republic of India. That is history.


Who is the "they"? Hindus? In all hindu majority places, shouldn hindus be allowed to govern themselves separately? Why is this separate governance only reserved for muslims?

You are still shirking from telling me a few "hindu lands" in India, although you had no problem calling one part "muslim land". Please name a few "hindu lands", and tell me if hindus in those places should be given separate governance.

Its state wise, city wise etc

 

[janon]

Nope. Hindus are cunning people. They work fine when they remain as slaves.

LOL, I see. Welcome to my ignore list.

I'm glad I have exposed you for what you are.

 

[Abingdonboy]

 

[Biplab Bijay]

LOL, I see. Welcome to my ignore list.

I'm glad I have exposed you for what you are.

I am trying to be secular. I have been banned for 9 times for being a nationalist. No one came to my rescue. So now I am a secular. I will increase my post count. even some secular Indian members agree with me. And kashmir was a muslim land. So is Hyderabad. Hindus should not have banned cow slaughter. And also Pakistanis will become my friends too.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

^^^

 

[Biplab Bijay]

^^^

????????????